Comments on: Of Bulgarian Vampires

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:12:37 +0000

Very interesting Dob, thank you for commenting. No surprise, but good to hear it ‘from the horse’s mouth’.

By: Dob

Dob — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:34:51 +0000

ok, this is too interesting NOT to respond in a word or two. First of all, I apologize if my English is a bit off, that’s because it’s not my mother tongue. What my mother tongue might be, you ask? Well, non other than Bulgarian
The story you cover here was wildly publicized last summer in our media and I’m telling you right now — it is completely made up. It’s just the ramblings of Professor Bozhidar (his name mind you, in literal translation means ‘God’s Gift’) Dimitrov (here’s the guy — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozhidar_Dimitrov)- director of the National Historical Museum.
Trust me, you can’t be more right when saying – “…and I’m sure all this is a wonderful boon to the Bulgarian tourist industry, I think forcing this evidence to fit Western preconceptions about vampires – derived from fiction…”. It is. It is a stupid tourist wanna be attraction.
On the other hand, the very word ‘vampire’ derives from Old Bulgarian/Slavic word ‘upyir’ (pretty unpronounceable in English). And burials like these are rather very well documented in numerous medieval sources from writers visiting these land.

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:20:37 +0000

I admit that I wasn’t at all sure myself, and you’re right – I jumped the gun rather there. Proper comparison shows significant differences.

Thanks for keeping me honest! My alternate worry remains however – this being a different skeleton, and not the other photographed, they have apparently under-reported the number of deviant burials found.

A further alternative is that they have spuriously associated a piece of iron with another body from the same site, which would be worse-case scenario and I can’t see any professional doing that. Perhaps they have displayed a prior find?

Every chance the media have mangled the story and there were more than two ‘staked’ bodies found. But I still don’t the evidence for these being ‘rods’, nor for the remains being ‘vampires’. *Something* weird is going on, certainly.

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:12:49 +0000

Sceptic, not cynic. There’s a difference. I actually *want* things like this to be true, the difference being that I actually give a monkey’s whether or not they are.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:41:43 +0000

Not wishing to appear rude – and I feel I can comfortably do that, as I have followed your rantings for quite a while – ( Which we all know is all the reason we ever need to form an opinion ) but I feel you may be ..how can I put this delicately?…

…..A CYNIC!!!!!!

The King is Dead…Long Live Christopher Hitchens

By: lawrence mayes

lawrence mayes — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:13:38 +0000

I’m not at all convinced that the first two pictures show the same body. Rather, I would say that they were almost certainly not the same. While it’s difficult to be certain because of the differences in lighting, camera angle and stage of the excavation, I find it hard to believe that that amount of damage could be inflicted just by the removal from the ground (however incompetent the archaeologist was). Also the morphology of the skulls appears significantly different which cannot be accounted for by optical effects.

By: Of Bulgarian Vampires « The BS Historian | Vampire Occult Society

Of Bulgarian Vampires « The BS Historian | Vampire Occult Society — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:12:45 +0000

[...] Of Bulgarian Vampires « The BS Historian This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged aside-from, bulgarian, bulgarian-vampires-, [...]